To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Volume 11, Number 2
February 2006
Children’s Services Practice
Notes is a publication for child
welfare workers produced four
times a year by the North
Carolina Division of Social
Services and the Family and
Children’s Resource Program,
part of the Jordan Institute for
Families and the School of
Social Work at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.
In summarizing recent re-search,
we try to give you new
ideas for refining your practice.
However, this publication is not
intended to replace child wel-fare
training, regular supervi-sion,
or peer consultation—
only to enhance them.
Let us hear from you!
To comment about something
that appears in this or any oth-er
issue of Children’s Services
Practice Notes, please send
your comments to:
John McMahon
Jordan Institute for Families
School of Social Work
UNC–Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550
johnmcmahon@mindspring.com
Newsletter Staff
Lane Cooke, MSW, Advisor
Ray Kirk, PhD, Advisor
John McMahon, MA, Writer
Visit Our Website
To read this or past issues of
Practice Notes online, go to
<www.practicenotes.org>.
References for the articles in
this issue can be found at
<www.practicenotes.org>
Photo Illustration WORKING WITH AMERICAN INDIAN FAMILIES
Note: in this issue the term “American Indian” is used interchangeably with “American Indian/
Alaska Native” solely for the purposes of brevity.
Despite their amazing cultural variety, all
American Indians have one thing in common:
a history of astounding resiliency.
Today, after centuries of violence, rac-ism,
and adversity, American Indian tribes
are growing and continuing as unique, vi-brant
cultures. Many Indian families are thriv-ing,
healthy, and strong. They are nurturing
their ancient ways, building their economies,
strengthening their communities, and look-ing
to the future with optimism and hope.
Yet oppression has left its mark. Many
people believe that Indians’ history of dis-crimination
and forced assimilation is the
true reason for the alcoholism, drug abuse,
and domestic violence that plague some In-dian
families (Gover, 2000).
Whatever their cause, problems such as
these can make it hard for some Indian fam-ilies
to ensure the safety and well-being of
their children. To work successfully with In-dian
families in crisis, child welfare workers
must keep several things in mind.
First, they must understand that many In-dians
are citizens not only of the U.S. but
also of their own tribes, which are distinct
sovereign entities. Because of this, child
welfare practice with many Native people is
governed by the Indian and Child Welfare
Act (ICWA), a federal law with which all child
welfare workers must comply.
Child welfare workers must also under-stand
that our government’s past efforts to
break up Indian families and destroy Native
culture casts a terrible shadow over their
work. Though it goes back many years, this
history extends to the very recent past and
directly involves child welfare agencies.
As recently as the 1970s
even the Child Welfare League
of America, which sets stan-dards
for child welfare practice
in the U.S., participated in a
program that promoted the
adoption of Indian children by
non-Native families. Through
CWLA’s involvement thousands
of Indian children grew up
alienated from their families
and their cultures. (In 2001
CWLA formally apologized to
Native people for its “hurtful,
biased, and disgraceful” actions.)
Let us be clear: many child welfare
organizations have acted in ways that hurt
Indian families. We highlight this part of
CWLA’s history because it illustrates how
ignorance and societal values can lead astray
even the most respected, best qualified, and
best intentioned people.
They say that past behavior is the best
predictor of future behavior. If this is true,
unless they make a special effort to learn
about, partner with, and support American
Indian children and their tribes, child wel-fare
workers today are probably still at seri-ous
risk of misunderstanding and harming
Native families.
To help you guard against the mistakes
of the past and prepare for successful part-nerships
with American Indian families, this
issue of Practice Notes provides a brief over-view
of events that have impacted Native
families, a discussion of Indian culture, sug-gestions
for complying with ICWA, and
more.
You must make a
special effort to
learn about,
partner with, and
support American
Indian children,
families, and tribes.
2
A HISTORY WE ALL SHOULD KNOW
To understand and successfully engage American Indian
families you must know something of their history. This is
a brief overview.
EXTERMINATION
Before 1871, the U.S. government used warfare and oth-er
means to try to eliminate the “Indian Problem.” Tribes
that survived were removed from their lands and forced
onto reservations (Halverson, et al., 2002).
ASSIMILATION
After 1871 the government policy toward Indians changed
to one of assimilation (Halverson, et al., 2002). Board-ing
schools were an essential part of this policy. From
the 1870s through the 1930s many Indian children were
taken from their families and raised in harsh, rigid institu-tions,
the primary purpose of which was to “civilize” Indi-ans
and eradicate all traces of Native culture.
In boarding schools children were beaten for using their
native language. Their hair, an important cultural symbol,
was cut short. They were required to wear uniforms in-stead
of individually created and uniquely decorated
clothes. Their names were taken away and they were giv-en
new “American” ones. Many schools, even govern-ment
ones, required children to engage in Christian wor-ship.
Many children lost all contact with their parents,
grandparents, and extended families (Horejsi, et al., 1992).
The boarding schools can be seen as a continuation of
the war on Indians, only the focus had shifted to the chil-dren
(Keohane, 2005). An example of the ruthlessness of
this war was the fact that from 1910 to 1930 the govern-ment
offered bonuses to boarding school workers to kid-nap
Indian children from their homes and take them to
boarding schools. These workers were known as “kid
snatchers” (Goldsmith, 2002).
The boarding schools had a devastating effect on Na-tive
families, in part because they prevented the passing
on of traditions and knowledge about how to raise chil-dren
and be a family. In addition, the schools introduced
new and dysfunctional behaviors, such as the use of se-vere
physical punishment of children, which previously
was rare among the tribes. Many children were also sub-jected
to sexual abuse (Horejsi, et al., 1992).
“Many of the boarding school survivors returned to their
tribes/nations and were unable to pick up the thread of
family life, inadvertently continuing the legacy of abuse they
themselves experienced away from home” (Fox, 2004).
Boarding schools were phased out after an official re-port
criticized government policy for educating Indians.
Although the boarding school era ended around 1940,
the resulting trauma, shame, fear, and anger—and relat-ed
social problems—continue to ripple through the gen-erations,
hurting Indian families and children today (Kalam-bakal,
2001; Andrzejek, 2004).
ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE
In the years after 1940 the push to get American Indians
to assimilate continued. Adoptions and child welfare inter-vention
were a significant part of this effort.
From the 1950s to the 1970s many private organiza-tions
tried to “save” Indian children by removing them
from their homes and placing them for adoption in non-
Native homes (Goldsmith, 2002).
At the same time, Indian children were placed in foster
care at shocking rates: a 1969 survey conducted in 16
states with large Indian populations found that between
25% to 35% of all Native children were removed from
their families and placed in foster or adoptive homes. In
some states Native children were 13 times more likely to
be removed from their homes than non-Native children
(Goldsmith, 2002; CWLA, 2005). The majority were
placed in non-Native foster homes.
Statistics such as these, as well as ten years of hear-ings,
led Congress to pass the Indian Child Welfare Act of
1978. For information about this law and how it applies to
you, turn to page 6.
Above: Boarding school “before and after” photos. The
schools aimed to destroy American Indian culture with-out
killing individual children. Their legacy is a trauma
of shame, fear, and anger that is still felt today.
Photos courtesy of the Western History/Geneaology Department, Denver Public Library
The NC Dept. of Health and Human Services does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability
in employment or the provision of services. 3,600 copies printed at a cost of $2,940.38 or $0.82 per copy.
3
AMERICAN INDIANS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Building your knowledge of the different groups you serve
is essential to culturally competent child welfare practice.
When it comes to working with American Indians, howev-er,
it is a matter of learning not about one culture, but
many. This article will help you develop some knowledge
of Native Americans in North Carolina.
NATIONALLY
According to the U.S. Census, in 2000 approximately 4.1
million people, or 1.5% of the total population, described
themselves as fully or partly American Indian/Alaska Na-tive.
Of these, 2.5 million, or 0.9% of the U.S. popula-tion,
described themselves Indian only. These Native peo-ples
belonged to more than 800 tribes (NICWA, 2005).
Diversity. The number and diversity of Native tribes—
and the fact that Indians are much more likely to identify
themselves as belonging to one or more additional racial
groups—underscores how important it is that child wel-fare
workers approach every Indian family with respect
and without making assumptions about the family’s val-ues,
culture, or approach to life (NCHS, 2005).
Sovereignty. Most Indian tribes are independent sov-ereign
nations with a special relationship to the U.S. gov-ernment.
Currently there are 562 federally-recognized
tribes, each of which retains the powers of self-govern-ment.
Child welfare matters regarding children who are
or who are eligible to be members of these tribes are
governed by federal law (to learn more see page 6). For
a list of federally-recognized tribes dated spring/summer
2005 go to <www.doi.gov/leaders.pdf>.
NORTH CAROLINA
According to the US Census Bureau,
99,551 North Carolinians, or 1% of the
people in the state, described their race
as American Indian during the 2000
Census. Nationally, along with Kansas,
Minnesota, and Oregon, our state is
ranked 12th in the percentage of its pop-ulation
that is Native American (US Cen-sus,
2005).
Age. As a group, North Carolina’s
Indian population is younger than the
state’s general population. Approximately 33% of Native
Americans in North Carolina are under age 19, com-pared
with a state average of 24% (NICWA, 2005; US
Census, 2005). This means that our state’s Native popu-lation
has a greater need for all types of community ser-vices
for children and youth.
Distribution. Nationally, at least 50% of Native Amer-icans
live in metropolitan areas (Bennett, 2003). In North
Carolina all counties have some Indian residents. Based
on Census data, eight counties (Cumberland, Hoke, Jack-son,
Mecklenburg, Robeson, Scotland, Swain, and Wake)
are home to 2,000 or more Native Americans. In several
of these Indians make up a significant percentage of the
population: Hoke (10%), Jackson (10%), Robeson (33%),
and Swain (25%).
Affiliation. There are Native Americans from many
tribes across the nation living in North Carolina. However,
most belong to one of 12 North Carolina-based tribes
and organizations (see sidebar). The Eastern Band of the
Cherokee is the only federally-recognized tribe based in
North Carolina.
According to the 2000 Census, the largest single Indi-an
group in North Carolina is the Lumbee, who number
46,896 and make up 47% of the Native population in the
state. For links to all tribal governments and Indian groups
in North Carolina, including contact information, go to
<www.doa.state.nc.us/cia/tribes.pdf> (dated Feb. 2005).
CONTEMPORARY INDIAN FAMILY LIFE
Families. Forty-eight percent of American Indians are
married (ICCTC, 2005). In most Indian communities,
“family” is defined broadly, and often includes extended
family, and even non-blood relatives. Families are often
close-knit, and usually consist of groups of siblings or cousins
living close together; elders may live with their adult chil-dren.
Parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents often share
the responsibility for all the children in the cont. p. 4
NORTH CAROLINA’S STATE-RECOGNIZED
AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES/ORGANIZATIONS
• Coharie Tribe, Sampson County
• Cumberland County Association for Indian People
• Eastern Band of the Cherokee,* Swain & Jackson Counties
* This tribe is also federally recognized
• Guilford Native American Association
• Haliwa Saponi Tribe, Halifax County
• Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, Robeson County
• Meherrin Indian Tribe, Hertford County
• Metrolina Native American Assoc., Mecklenburg County
• Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation, Alamance County
• Sappony Tribe, Person County
• Triangle Native American Society, Wake County
• Waccamaw Siouan Development Association,
Columbus County
Native Americans
from tribes across
the U.S. live in NC;
every county has
Indian residents.
4
extended family group. Just as tribes vary markedly in
culture, so do individuals and families. Red Horse and
colleagues (1978) describe three common lifestyles of
Indian families today:
Traditional. Families use the tribal language and prac-tice
the tribal religion. They may participate in the domi-nant
culture’s activities, but tribal activities take precedence.
Bi-cultural. Persons in these families cope comfortably
in both tribal and non-tribal settings. English is the pre-dominant
language. Non-Indian beliefs and recreational
and social activities may be predominant. Bicultural fam-ilies
remain interested in Indian cultural activities.
Pan-traditional. Conversation within the family may be
in English or the native tongue. Religious beliefs may be a
composite of a number of traditional forms. These fami-lies
often reject activities of the dominant society in an
effort to recapture traditional ways in danger of being lost
or abandoned (e.g., traditional singing and dancing).
Spirituality. It has only been legal for Indians to pub-licly
display their religious practices since the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Therefore, many
Indians are very protective of their spiritual practices.
Though Indian spiritual traditions are quite diverse, most
emphasize a respect for life, a connectedness with na-ture,
and a belief in a spiritual existence after the physical
body has died. Most Indian religions promote the notion
there must be balance between one’s physical, mental,
emotional, and spiritual health (AIMHAC, 2004).
Many Indians reject traditional Native spiritual practic-es
and embrace Christianity; some have no strong spiritu-al
beliefs (AIMHAC, 2004).
Child-rearing. Traditionally, responsibility for caring
for, teaching, disciplining, and raising children in most
American Indian cultures was shared between the child’s
mother and father and other members of the tribe, espe-cially
extended family members. Many Indian families to-day
still raise their children this way, although the increas-ing
urbanization of Native peoples can undermine strate-gies
connected with this approach to child-rearing.
INDIAN CHILD WELL-BEING IN NC
How are our state’s American Indian children faring? In a
word, things could be better.
Willeto (2002) assessed the well-being of Native chil-dren
nationally and in 13 states, one of which was North
Carolina. She found that we did not compare well with
other states in several important categories, including:
• Low birthweight: in 1999, 11.2% of NC’s Native
American babies were born with low birthweights, com-pared
to the national Indian average of 7.1%
• Teen birth rate: in 1999, for every 1,000 Native teen
girls in NC an average of 53.5 gave birth, compared
to the national Indian average of 41.4 per 1,000
• Infant mortality: between 1997-1999, NC averaged
13.7 Indian infant deaths for every 1,000 births, com-pared
to the national Indian average of 9.1 per 1,000
• High school drop out: in 1999, 24% of North Caroli-na
Indians dropped out of high school, compared with
the national Native American average of 15.85%
We did perform better than most of the other 13 states in
some areas, including child poverty: 25.4% of NC’s Indi-an
children lived below the poverty level in 1999, com-pared
with the national Indian average of 31.6%. Still, the
fact that one in four children lived in poverty is not good.
NATIVE WELL-BEING NATIONALLY
In fact, focusing on the well-being of North
CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRACTICE WITH NATIVE AMERICANS
• Help-seeking patterns. For various reasons Native people
may be reluctant to seek “official” help. If an individual is
unable to resolve a problem on her own, she will commonly
turn to the following resources, in this order: (1) immediate
family, (2) extended family (cousins, aunts, uncles), (3) religious
leader, (4) tribal council/organization, (5) mainstream resource
system.
• Time. Indian people may not feel a sense of urgency about
time. Many will come to an appointment late—or not at all—
if they have something they believe is more important to do.
Events that may be considered more important can include
the needs of family and friends, family crises, ceremonies, or
deaths.
• Communication Styles.
Nonverbal: Often Indian people communicate a great
deal through nonverbal gestures, such as using downcast
eyes or ignoring an individual when they are unhappy with
or disagree with a person.
Humor: Indians may use humor to express truths or
difficult messages, and might cover great pain with smiles
or jokes. It is important to listen closely to humor, as it may
be seen as invasive to ask for too much clarification.
• Criticism. It is often considered unacceptable for an Indian
person to criticize another, even if the individual has been
exceedingly abusive. There is a common belief that people
who have acted wrongly will pay for their acts in one way or
Sources: AIMHAC, 2004; Dial, 2005 another, although the method may not be the legal system.
continued from page 3
cont. p. 5
AMERICAN INDIANS IN NORTH CAROLINA
5
Carolina’s Indian children relative to Native children in
other states obscures the fact that at the national level,
Native American children and youth performed worse on
nine of the ten well-being indicators Willeto measured.
The bottom line is, regardless of where they live many
American Indians—adults and children—are at risk. Some
of the risks they face include:
Poverty. Despite income from casinos and other
projects, most Indians are worse off economically than
the general U.S. population. In 2001–03, more than one
in five Native Americans lived in poverty (NCHS, 2005).
Untimely death. Native people have a life expectan-cy
of 65 years, well below the U.S. average of 77.6 years
(Bennett, 2003). In 2002 the death rate for motor vehi-cle-
related injury for American Indian males aged 15–24
was almost 40% higher and the suicide rate was almost
60% higher than the rates for those causes for young White
males (NCHS, 2005).
Violent Crime and Domestic Violence. Rates of
violent victimization for both males and females are high-er
among American Indians than for all races. Native wom-en
are at special risk for intimate partner violence (CDC,
2005). Violence is reported in 16% of all marital rela-tionships
among Indians, with severe violence reported in
7% of these relationships. Indian victims of intimate vio-lence
are more likely than others to be injured and need
medical attention (NIH, 2002).
Illness. Some illnesses, including diabetes, chronic liv-er
disease, and cirrhosis, pose a special challenge to Na-tive
populations (NCHS, 2005). The fight against illness is
made more difficult by the fact that many Indian commu-nities
have inadequate numbers of physical and mental
health care providers (Cross, 2005).
Child Maltreatment. Indian children consistently have
the highest rates of maltreatment victimization in the U.S.
In 2002 Indian children were abused and neglected at a
rate of 21.7 per 1,000 Native children; the rate for White
children was 10.7 per 1,000 (USDHHS, 2005). Neglect
is the most common form of maltreatment among Native
Americans, while sexual and physical abuse appear to be
less common than among other groups (ICCTC, 2005).
AMERICAN INDIAN STRENGTHS
Although the challenges they face are real, Native Amer-icans
also possess many strengths.
Foremost among these is their resiliency. Indeed, after
centuries of racism, discrimination, boarding school place-ments,
forced relocation, attempted genocide, and tran-sracial
adoption, Native Americans’ very existence is a
remarkable achievement (Goodluck, 2002). But Indians
have done more than survive. Evidence for this can be
found in statistics about home ownership (nearly 55% of
all Native people own their own home) and education
(75% of Indians age 25 and over have at least a high
school diploma, 14% have at least a bachelor’s degree),
and in the fact that today American Indians are growing
and continuing as unique cultures and tribes.
To better understand American Indians’ successes,
Goodluck (2002) conducted a study in which she identi-fied
42 Native strengths. These strengths included the sov-ereignty
of tribes, humor, traditions, and many more (see
figure). This list is important because it can help non-Na-tive
child welfare practitioners understand what is impor-tant
to Indian individuals, families, and tribes.
Goodluck also developed a model of Native American
well-being. At the heart of this model are three domains:
extended family, spirituality, and social connections. Good-luck
believes activities in these domains reinforce one an-other
to create a cycle of Native American well-being.
Workers who want to improve their ability to recognize
Indian strengths and empower Native families should con-sider
reading Goodluck’s report, which contains sugges-tions
for identifying behaviors associated with different Na-tive
strengths. It is available at <www.casey.org/Resourc-es/
Publications/NICWAWellBeingIndicators.htm>.
continued from page 4 THEMES OF NATIVE AMERICAN STRENGTHS
Source: Goodluck, 2002
This list is important because it can help non-Native child welfare
workers understand what is important to Indian families.
6
IMPLEMENTING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1978
It has been almost 30 years since Congress en-acted
the Indian Child Welfare Act. Though
we’ve made some strides during this time, child
welfare agencies occasionally struggle with the
why and the how of this important law.
As the story of Zak’s family illustrates (see facing page),
failing to understand and implement the requirements of
ICWA can cause delays and unnecessarily adversarial re-lationships
between the various parties in child welfare
cases that involve Native families. It can also cost child
welfare agencies in terms of time, money, and frustra-tion.
Worst of all, it can threaten the well-being of Indian
children, their families, and their tribes.
This article will review the reasons ICWA was created
and describe how to comply with it to safeguard the inter-ests
of Indian children and their tribes.
THE LAW
Congress passed ICWA in 1978, spurred on by evidence
that 25% to 35% of all Indian children at that time were
being removed from their families and placed in non-
Native foster and adoptive homes. The law can be seen
as an effort to end state and county child welfare policies
and practices that Congress believed were devastating
American Indian tribes.
ICWA does several important things to protect Indian
children and Indian tribes. First, it establishes a federal
standard that defines what is in the best interests of Indian
children. This standard is different from the standard for
other children, in part because Indian children enjoy a
different status in the courts because they are also part of
tribes, which are distinct sovereign entities. This
standard acknowledges that it is of vital im-portance
to the well-being of Indian children
to protect their rights as Indians, including their
right to be raised in a home that immerses
them in their cultural heritage (Goldsmith, 2002).
ICWA also protects the decisionmaking role of the child’s
tribe by requiring state courts and child welfare agencies
to notify tribes, invite them to intervene, and comply with
tribal preferences during: (1) foster care placements, (2)
TPR proceedings, (3) preadoptive and adoptive place-ments,
and (4) juvenile court custody or guardianship of
the juvenile. Even if a tribe initially declines to intervene, it
can change its mind at any time.
KEY POINTS
Particularly important elements of ICWA that all child wel-fare
workers and agencies should know include:
Identification of ICWA Children. ICWA applies
only to Indian children who are either (1) a member of a
federally-recognized tribe or (2) eligible for membership
in a federally-recognized tribe AND is the biological child
of a member of that tribe.
As the NC Supreme Court recently confirmed, only
children from federally-recognized tribes are subject to
ICWA (see 169 N.C. App. 701, 612 S.E. 2d 639,2005).
For a list of federally-recognized tribes dated spring/sum-mer
2005 go to <www.doi.gov/leaders.pdf>.
To fully comply with ICWA child welfare workers should
inquire whether children/parents are American Indian with
every family and at every stage of each family’s case.
ICWA protects
the rights of
Indian children
and their tribes.
10 TIPS FOR COLLABORATING WITH TRIBES UNDER ICWA AND ASFA
1. Approach tribes with respect as unique, sovereign entities. Treat tribes as partners.
2. Know the law and state/tribal agreements.
3. Inquire whether children/parents are American Indian in all cases at every stage of the case.
4. Provide tribes with timely notice of ICWA cases. Be sure to notify the right contact at the tribe, usually the
social service provider.
5. Give tribal court orders and acts full faith and credit. Tribal courts have full authority to conduct Indian child
custody proceedings (ICWA, P.L. 95-608, Section 1911 (d)).
6. Work collaboratively with tribal social workers in implementing ICWA requirements; include tribal social
workers in all aspects of case plan development, including permanency planning.
7. Remember that the ICWA active efforts requirement is a higher standard of service than the reasonable
efforts requirement under ASFA.
8. Contact extended family members. Remember that American Indian extended families are much larger
than mainstream families and include relatives beyond grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.
9. Follow ICWA or Tribal placement preferences.
10. Do not fast-track potential Indian child welfare cases without immediately involving the tribes and/or extend-ed
family members.
Source: Amanda Cross, Institute for Child and Family Policy, Univ. of Southern Maine, in consultation with NICWA (Muskie, 2003).
7
Even if ICWA does not apply to an Indian child,
child welfare workers should still engage these fam-ilies
as they would any family. This means applying
the family-centered principles of partnership and
making the assumptions that form the basis of our
work. Among these is the belief that the safety of chil-dren
and others is always the first concern, that chil-dren
have a right to their families, and that families
themselves are our primary resource for protecting
children.
Notification of Tribes. If it suspects a child is
Native American, a child welfare agency must im-mediately
contact the child’s tribe to determine wheth-er
the child is an Indian child as defined by ICWA.
Only the tribe has the power to determine whether
the child is, or is eligible to be, a member.
Once tribal affiliation is determined, the child wel-fare
agency must provide written notice of any im-pending
placement proceedings to the child’s par-ents,
Indian custodian, and tribe. ICWA spells out the
information that must be contained in that notice,
which must be sent to the tribe via registered mail,
return receipt requested. It is best to phone the tribal
contact person and let that person know that you are
sending the required registered letter. It is also advis-able
to make a follow-up phone call a few days after
the letter is mailed out.
Active Efforts. Under ICWA, during foster care
or termination of parental rights proceedings child
welfare agencies must prove that they have used “ac-tive
efforts” (a higher standard than “reasonable ef-forts”)
to provide remedial services and rehabilita-tive
programs to prevent the breakup of the Native
American family, and that these efforts have failed.
Active efforts must be directly connected to the parent-ing
problems that are requiring your agency to seek
or maintain custody of the child (NCJFCJ, 2002).
Higher Standards of Proof. When ICWA ap-plies,
in order for the child to be placed in or remain
in foster care, DSS must use a “qualified expert wit-ness”
to present clear and convincing evidence in
court to demonstrate that continued custody with the
parent is “likely to result in serious emotional or phys-ical
damage to the child.” If a TPR petition is filed, the
standard of proof rises to beyond a reasonable doubt,
which is higher than North Carolina’s “clear and con-vincing”
standard for non-ICWA cases.
Placement Preferences. If placement of the
child is necessary, ICWA also establishes specific place-ment
preferences. Under ICWA, Indian
continued from page 6
When we first found out that our nephew, Zak, (my broth-er’s
2-year-old son) was in foster care, we weren’t sure
what to do. He was in another state and his parents had
been accused of physically abusing him. Even though
he is an enrolled member of our tribe, he wasn’t in an
Indian foster home like the ICWA requires. But at the
time, that was the least of our worries. We just wanted
to find out what we could do to help my brother, sister-in-law, and nephew.
Things didn’t look too good. Even though the abuse charges were
alleged, they hadn’t been proven. But besides the abuse charges, my
brother and his wife were pretty heavily involved in drugs and didn’t seem to
be doing anything to try to get their son back. My husband and I didn’t think
Zak would ever be returned to them because they really weren’t working
on their treatment plan.
We were licensed foster parents on the reservation where we live. We
figured we’d have a good chance to get our nephew placed with us when
the permanent plan was decided. My brother and sister-in-law were OK
about us having Zak placed with us. But the child welfare agency in their
state thought we wouldn’t protect him from his parents, so they left him in
the non-Indian foster home.
At first the child welfare agency didn’t notify our tribe about our family
situation. My brother didn’t tell the worker that he was a tribal member, and
she didn’t think Zak looked “Indian.” If the agency worker had asked Zak’s
parents more about their Indian heritage, she would have found out that
Zak was enrolled with our tribe. By the time the agency worker found out
about Zak’s Indian heritage and notified our tribe, Zak had already been in
foster care for three months. The tribe intervened and told the child welfare
agency that they wanted to transfer Zak’s case to tribal court in our state.
But the state court found “good cause” not to transfer and noted that Zak
had bonded with the foster family.
So Zak stayed in the non-Indian foster home where he’d been placed.
We were able to visit him only about once every six to eight weeks because
it was hard for us to travel out of state to see him. But we didn’t want him
to forget us so we kept visiting as often as we could. In the meanwhile, our
tribe kept trying to get jurisdiction.
After a year, Zak’s mom and dad had not finished their treatment plan
and had done nothing to reunify with Zak. The agency worker decided that
the permanent plan for Zak would be adoption. Even though she wanted
the foster family to adopt him, we also wanted to adopt Zak since he’s our
nephew. Our tribal lawyer was able to show in court that the purpose of
ICWA is to keep Indian families together. He proved that the social service
agency didn’t follow the ICWA from the beginning. He also showed that we
had kept close connections with Zak with our visits, and we were bonded
to him, too. It took a long time, but finally the court ruled in favor of the ICWA
and transferred jurisdiction to our tribal court, and we adopted Zak.
We know it was hard for his foster family to give him up, so we try to
make sure he has visits with them sometimes. But now Zak is growing up
with his cousins, grandparents, aunts, and uncles who live near us on the
reservation. He is learning the traditions and ceremonies of our tribe.
If it hadn’t been for the Indian Child Welfare Act, our family probably
would have been separated forever.
Reprinted from A Family’s Guide to the Child Welfare System (2005 Edition)
<gucchd.georgetown.edu/files/products_publications/AFamilysGuide.pdf>
THE VOICES OF ZAK’S AUNT AND UNCLE
cont. p. 8
Photo Illustration
Children’s Services Practice Notes
Family & Children’s Resource Program
Jordan Institute for Families
UNC–School of Social Work
Campus Box 3550
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550
State Courier # 17-61-04
IN THIS ISSUE: WORKING WITH AMERICAN INDIAN FAMILIES
IMPLEMENTING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1978 from p. 7
children must be placed in the least restrictive setting possible, and the
placement must be within reasonable proximity to the child’s home.
Additionally, foster care placements are given the following order
of preference: (1) with extended family (third-degree blood ties—first
or second cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, or stepparents); (2)
with Indian foster parents approved by the tribe or with an Indian fos-ter
home licensed by the state; or (3) in residential care approved by
the tribe. The following is the preferred order for adoptive placements
of Indian children under ICWA: (1) extended family, (2) non-related
members of the same tribe, (3) other Indian families. Tribes may alter
the order of preference for its children, and the child welfare agency
must follow this new order. Also, consideration may be given to a
parent’s or a child’s wishes with regard to placement. (It should be
noted that these Indian/tribal preferences are possible because anoth-er
federal law, the Multiethnic Placement Act, has no effect on ICWA;
thus an Indian child may be moved from a non-Indian foster home to
comply with these preferences without a MEPA violation.)
Social workers must make every attempt to identify placements that
fit with this prescribed order, and they must carefully document any
reasons for failure to follow it (Goldsmith, 2002). These preferences
apply in ICWA cases even if the tribe elects not to intervene.
If a county or state child welfare agency places an Indian child in
foster care and the placement disrupts, compliance with ICWA must
continue: the agency must send notification via registered mail to the
tribe, which has another opportunity to intervene or indicate prefer-ences.
FURTHER LEARNING
There is more to know about ICWA than we have space to relate. For
additional ICWA learning resources, including online courses, see vol.
7, no. 2 of Training Matters <www.trainingmatters-nc.org>.
Photo Illustration
KEY POINTS FROM THIS ISSUE
Success with Indian families will de-pend
in large part on your cultural
competence. This means you must
learn about the history, customs,
and world view of the families you
serve. It is especially important to
understand:
• That to comply with ICWA and
to effectively serve Indian families, you must ask
every child and family you work with whether
they are American Indian
• The broad definition of “family” in many Indian
communities, and the implications this has for
practice
• Communication styles and help-seeking and child-rearing
traditions of Native peoples
• Native people’s history of oppression and the
impact this has on their well-being and attitude
toward mainstream society
• Not only ICWA’s requirements but its intent, which
is to protect the interests of Indian children and
their tribes
• The challenges Indian families face today,
including poverty, alcohol abuse, domestic
violence, and untimely death
• The many strengths that Indians are drawing on
to solve problems and to grow and continue as
unique cultures and tribes

Volume 11, Number 2
February 2006
Children’s Services Practice
Notes is a publication for child
welfare workers produced four
times a year by the North
Carolina Division of Social
Services and the Family and
Children’s Resource Program,
part of the Jordan Institute for
Families and the School of
Social Work at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.
In summarizing recent re-search,
we try to give you new
ideas for refining your practice.
However, this publication is not
intended to replace child wel-fare
training, regular supervi-sion,
or peer consultation—
only to enhance them.
Let us hear from you!
To comment about something
that appears in this or any oth-er
issue of Children’s Services
Practice Notes, please send
your comments to:
John McMahon
Jordan Institute for Families
School of Social Work
UNC–Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550
johnmcmahon@mindspring.com
Newsletter Staff
Lane Cooke, MSW, Advisor
Ray Kirk, PhD, Advisor
John McMahon, MA, Writer
Visit Our Website
To read this or past issues of
Practice Notes online, go to
.
References for the articles in
this issue can be found at
Photo Illustration WORKING WITH AMERICAN INDIAN FAMILIES
Note: in this issue the term “American Indian” is used interchangeably with “American Indian/
Alaska Native” solely for the purposes of brevity.
Despite their amazing cultural variety, all
American Indians have one thing in common:
a history of astounding resiliency.
Today, after centuries of violence, rac-ism,
and adversity, American Indian tribes
are growing and continuing as unique, vi-brant
cultures. Many Indian families are thriv-ing,
healthy, and strong. They are nurturing
their ancient ways, building their economies,
strengthening their communities, and look-ing
to the future with optimism and hope.
Yet oppression has left its mark. Many
people believe that Indians’ history of dis-crimination
and forced assimilation is the
true reason for the alcoholism, drug abuse,
and domestic violence that plague some In-dian
families (Gover, 2000).
Whatever their cause, problems such as
these can make it hard for some Indian fam-ilies
to ensure the safety and well-being of
their children. To work successfully with In-dian
families in crisis, child welfare workers
must keep several things in mind.
First, they must understand that many In-dians
are citizens not only of the U.S. but
also of their own tribes, which are distinct
sovereign entities. Because of this, child
welfare practice with many Native people is
governed by the Indian and Child Welfare
Act (ICWA), a federal law with which all child
welfare workers must comply.
Child welfare workers must also under-stand
that our government’s past efforts to
break up Indian families and destroy Native
culture casts a terrible shadow over their
work. Though it goes back many years, this
history extends to the very recent past and
directly involves child welfare agencies.
As recently as the 1970s
even the Child Welfare League
of America, which sets stan-dards
for child welfare practice
in the U.S., participated in a
program that promoted the
adoption of Indian children by
non-Native families. Through
CWLA’s involvement thousands
of Indian children grew up
alienated from their families
and their cultures. (In 2001
CWLA formally apologized to
Native people for its “hurtful,
biased, and disgraceful” actions.)
Let us be clear: many child welfare
organizations have acted in ways that hurt
Indian families. We highlight this part of
CWLA’s history because it illustrates how
ignorance and societal values can lead astray
even the most respected, best qualified, and
best intentioned people.
They say that past behavior is the best
predictor of future behavior. If this is true,
unless they make a special effort to learn
about, partner with, and support American
Indian children and their tribes, child wel-fare
workers today are probably still at seri-ous
risk of misunderstanding and harming
Native families.
To help you guard against the mistakes
of the past and prepare for successful part-nerships
with American Indian families, this
issue of Practice Notes provides a brief over-view
of events that have impacted Native
families, a discussion of Indian culture, sug-gestions
for complying with ICWA, and
more.
You must make a
special effort to
learn about,
partner with, and
support American
Indian children,
families, and tribes.
2
A HISTORY WE ALL SHOULD KNOW
To understand and successfully engage American Indian
families you must know something of their history. This is
a brief overview.
EXTERMINATION
Before 1871, the U.S. government used warfare and oth-er
means to try to eliminate the “Indian Problem.” Tribes
that survived were removed from their lands and forced
onto reservations (Halverson, et al., 2002).
ASSIMILATION
After 1871 the government policy toward Indians changed
to one of assimilation (Halverson, et al., 2002). Board-ing
schools were an essential part of this policy. From
the 1870s through the 1930s many Indian children were
taken from their families and raised in harsh, rigid institu-tions,
the primary purpose of which was to “civilize” Indi-ans
and eradicate all traces of Native culture.
In boarding schools children were beaten for using their
native language. Their hair, an important cultural symbol,
was cut short. They were required to wear uniforms in-stead
of individually created and uniquely decorated
clothes. Their names were taken away and they were giv-en
new “American” ones. Many schools, even govern-ment
ones, required children to engage in Christian wor-ship.
Many children lost all contact with their parents,
grandparents, and extended families (Horejsi, et al., 1992).
The boarding schools can be seen as a continuation of
the war on Indians, only the focus had shifted to the chil-dren
(Keohane, 2005). An example of the ruthlessness of
this war was the fact that from 1910 to 1930 the govern-ment
offered bonuses to boarding school workers to kid-nap
Indian children from their homes and take them to
boarding schools. These workers were known as “kid
snatchers” (Goldsmith, 2002).
The boarding schools had a devastating effect on Na-tive
families, in part because they prevented the passing
on of traditions and knowledge about how to raise chil-dren
and be a family. In addition, the schools introduced
new and dysfunctional behaviors, such as the use of se-vere
physical punishment of children, which previously
was rare among the tribes. Many children were also sub-jected
to sexual abuse (Horejsi, et al., 1992).
“Many of the boarding school survivors returned to their
tribes/nations and were unable to pick up the thread of
family life, inadvertently continuing the legacy of abuse they
themselves experienced away from home” (Fox, 2004).
Boarding schools were phased out after an official re-port
criticized government policy for educating Indians.
Although the boarding school era ended around 1940,
the resulting trauma, shame, fear, and anger—and relat-ed
social problems—continue to ripple through the gen-erations,
hurting Indian families and children today (Kalam-bakal,
2001; Andrzejek, 2004).
ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE
In the years after 1940 the push to get American Indians
to assimilate continued. Adoptions and child welfare inter-vention
were a significant part of this effort.
From the 1950s to the 1970s many private organiza-tions
tried to “save” Indian children by removing them
from their homes and placing them for adoption in non-
Native homes (Goldsmith, 2002).
At the same time, Indian children were placed in foster
care at shocking rates: a 1969 survey conducted in 16
states with large Indian populations found that between
25% to 35% of all Native children were removed from
their families and placed in foster or adoptive homes. In
some states Native children were 13 times more likely to
be removed from their homes than non-Native children
(Goldsmith, 2002; CWLA, 2005). The majority were
placed in non-Native foster homes.
Statistics such as these, as well as ten years of hear-ings,
led Congress to pass the Indian Child Welfare Act of
1978. For information about this law and how it applies to
you, turn to page 6.
Above: Boarding school “before and after” photos. The
schools aimed to destroy American Indian culture with-out
killing individual children. Their legacy is a trauma
of shame, fear, and anger that is still felt today.
Photos courtesy of the Western History/Geneaology Department, Denver Public Library
The NC Dept. of Health and Human Services does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability
in employment or the provision of services. 3,600 copies printed at a cost of $2,940.38 or $0.82 per copy.
3
AMERICAN INDIANS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Building your knowledge of the different groups you serve
is essential to culturally competent child welfare practice.
When it comes to working with American Indians, howev-er,
it is a matter of learning not about one culture, but
many. This article will help you develop some knowledge
of Native Americans in North Carolina.
NATIONALLY
According to the U.S. Census, in 2000 approximately 4.1
million people, or 1.5% of the total population, described
themselves as fully or partly American Indian/Alaska Na-tive.
Of these, 2.5 million, or 0.9% of the U.S. popula-tion,
described themselves Indian only. These Native peo-ples
belonged to more than 800 tribes (NICWA, 2005).
Diversity. The number and diversity of Native tribes—
and the fact that Indians are much more likely to identify
themselves as belonging to one or more additional racial
groups—underscores how important it is that child wel-fare
workers approach every Indian family with respect
and without making assumptions about the family’s val-ues,
culture, or approach to life (NCHS, 2005).
Sovereignty. Most Indian tribes are independent sov-ereign
nations with a special relationship to the U.S. gov-ernment.
Currently there are 562 federally-recognized
tribes, each of which retains the powers of self-govern-ment.
Child welfare matters regarding children who are
or who are eligible to be members of these tribes are
governed by federal law (to learn more see page 6). For
a list of federally-recognized tribes dated spring/summer
2005 go to .
NORTH CAROLINA
According to the US Census Bureau,
99,551 North Carolinians, or 1% of the
people in the state, described their race
as American Indian during the 2000
Census. Nationally, along with Kansas,
Minnesota, and Oregon, our state is
ranked 12th in the percentage of its pop-ulation
that is Native American (US Cen-sus,
2005).
Age. As a group, North Carolina’s
Indian population is younger than the
state’s general population. Approximately 33% of Native
Americans in North Carolina are under age 19, com-pared
with a state average of 24% (NICWA, 2005; US
Census, 2005). This means that our state’s Native popu-lation
has a greater need for all types of community ser-vices
for children and youth.
Distribution. Nationally, at least 50% of Native Amer-icans
live in metropolitan areas (Bennett, 2003). In North
Carolina all counties have some Indian residents. Based
on Census data, eight counties (Cumberland, Hoke, Jack-son,
Mecklenburg, Robeson, Scotland, Swain, and Wake)
are home to 2,000 or more Native Americans. In several
of these Indians make up a significant percentage of the
population: Hoke (10%), Jackson (10%), Robeson (33%),
and Swain (25%).
Affiliation. There are Native Americans from many
tribes across the nation living in North Carolina. However,
most belong to one of 12 North Carolina-based tribes
and organizations (see sidebar). The Eastern Band of the
Cherokee is the only federally-recognized tribe based in
North Carolina.
According to the 2000 Census, the largest single Indi-an
group in North Carolina is the Lumbee, who number
46,896 and make up 47% of the Native population in the
state. For links to all tribal governments and Indian groups
in North Carolina, including contact information, go to
(dated Feb. 2005).
CONTEMPORARY INDIAN FAMILY LIFE
Families. Forty-eight percent of American Indians are
married (ICCTC, 2005). In most Indian communities,
“family” is defined broadly, and often includes extended
family, and even non-blood relatives. Families are often
close-knit, and usually consist of groups of siblings or cousins
living close together; elders may live with their adult chil-dren.
Parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents often share
the responsibility for all the children in the cont. p. 4
NORTH CAROLINA’S STATE-RECOGNIZED
AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES/ORGANIZATIONS
• Coharie Tribe, Sampson County
• Cumberland County Association for Indian People
• Eastern Band of the Cherokee,* Swain & Jackson Counties
* This tribe is also federally recognized
• Guilford Native American Association
• Haliwa Saponi Tribe, Halifax County
• Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, Robeson County
• Meherrin Indian Tribe, Hertford County
• Metrolina Native American Assoc., Mecklenburg County
• Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation, Alamance County
• Sappony Tribe, Person County
• Triangle Native American Society, Wake County
• Waccamaw Siouan Development Association,
Columbus County
Native Americans
from tribes across
the U.S. live in NC;
every county has
Indian residents.
4
extended family group. Just as tribes vary markedly in
culture, so do individuals and families. Red Horse and
colleagues (1978) describe three common lifestyles of
Indian families today:
Traditional. Families use the tribal language and prac-tice
the tribal religion. They may participate in the domi-nant
culture’s activities, but tribal activities take precedence.
Bi-cultural. Persons in these families cope comfortably
in both tribal and non-tribal settings. English is the pre-dominant
language. Non-Indian beliefs and recreational
and social activities may be predominant. Bicultural fam-ilies
remain interested in Indian cultural activities.
Pan-traditional. Conversation within the family may be
in English or the native tongue. Religious beliefs may be a
composite of a number of traditional forms. These fami-lies
often reject activities of the dominant society in an
effort to recapture traditional ways in danger of being lost
or abandoned (e.g., traditional singing and dancing).
Spirituality. It has only been legal for Indians to pub-licly
display their religious practices since the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Therefore, many
Indians are very protective of their spiritual practices.
Though Indian spiritual traditions are quite diverse, most
emphasize a respect for life, a connectedness with na-ture,
and a belief in a spiritual existence after the physical
body has died. Most Indian religions promote the notion
there must be balance between one’s physical, mental,
emotional, and spiritual health (AIMHAC, 2004).
Many Indians reject traditional Native spiritual practic-es
and embrace Christianity; some have no strong spiritu-al
beliefs (AIMHAC, 2004).
Child-rearing. Traditionally, responsibility for caring
for, teaching, disciplining, and raising children in most
American Indian cultures was shared between the child’s
mother and father and other members of the tribe, espe-cially
extended family members. Many Indian families to-day
still raise their children this way, although the increas-ing
urbanization of Native peoples can undermine strate-gies
connected with this approach to child-rearing.
INDIAN CHILD WELL-BEING IN NC
How are our state’s American Indian children faring? In a
word, things could be better.
Willeto (2002) assessed the well-being of Native chil-dren
nationally and in 13 states, one of which was North
Carolina. She found that we did not compare well with
other states in several important categories, including:
• Low birthweight: in 1999, 11.2% of NC’s Native
American babies were born with low birthweights, com-pared
to the national Indian average of 7.1%
• Teen birth rate: in 1999, for every 1,000 Native teen
girls in NC an average of 53.5 gave birth, compared
to the national Indian average of 41.4 per 1,000
• Infant mortality: between 1997-1999, NC averaged
13.7 Indian infant deaths for every 1,000 births, com-pared
to the national Indian average of 9.1 per 1,000
• High school drop out: in 1999, 24% of North Caroli-na
Indians dropped out of high school, compared with
the national Native American average of 15.85%
We did perform better than most of the other 13 states in
some areas, including child poverty: 25.4% of NC’s Indi-an
children lived below the poverty level in 1999, com-pared
with the national Indian average of 31.6%. Still, the
fact that one in four children lived in poverty is not good.
NATIVE WELL-BEING NATIONALLY
In fact, focusing on the well-being of North
CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRACTICE WITH NATIVE AMERICANS
• Help-seeking patterns. For various reasons Native people
may be reluctant to seek “official” help. If an individual is
unable to resolve a problem on her own, she will commonly
turn to the following resources, in this order: (1) immediate
family, (2) extended family (cousins, aunts, uncles), (3) religious
leader, (4) tribal council/organization, (5) mainstream resource
system.
• Time. Indian people may not feel a sense of urgency about
time. Many will come to an appointment late—or not at all—
if they have something they believe is more important to do.
Events that may be considered more important can include
the needs of family and friends, family crises, ceremonies, or
deaths.
• Communication Styles.
Nonverbal: Often Indian people communicate a great
deal through nonverbal gestures, such as using downcast
eyes or ignoring an individual when they are unhappy with
or disagree with a person.
Humor: Indians may use humor to express truths or
difficult messages, and might cover great pain with smiles
or jokes. It is important to listen closely to humor, as it may
be seen as invasive to ask for too much clarification.
• Criticism. It is often considered unacceptable for an Indian
person to criticize another, even if the individual has been
exceedingly abusive. There is a common belief that people
who have acted wrongly will pay for their acts in one way or
Sources: AIMHAC, 2004; Dial, 2005 another, although the method may not be the legal system.
continued from page 3
cont. p. 5
AMERICAN INDIANS IN NORTH CAROLINA
5
Carolina’s Indian children relative to Native children in
other states obscures the fact that at the national level,
Native American children and youth performed worse on
nine of the ten well-being indicators Willeto measured.
The bottom line is, regardless of where they live many
American Indians—adults and children—are at risk. Some
of the risks they face include:
Poverty. Despite income from casinos and other
projects, most Indians are worse off economically than
the general U.S. population. In 2001–03, more than one
in five Native Americans lived in poverty (NCHS, 2005).
Untimely death. Native people have a life expectan-cy
of 65 years, well below the U.S. average of 77.6 years
(Bennett, 2003). In 2002 the death rate for motor vehi-cle-
related injury for American Indian males aged 15–24
was almost 40% higher and the suicide rate was almost
60% higher than the rates for those causes for young White
males (NCHS, 2005).
Violent Crime and Domestic Violence. Rates of
violent victimization for both males and females are high-er
among American Indians than for all races. Native wom-en
are at special risk for intimate partner violence (CDC,
2005). Violence is reported in 16% of all marital rela-tionships
among Indians, with severe violence reported in
7% of these relationships. Indian victims of intimate vio-lence
are more likely than others to be injured and need
medical attention (NIH, 2002).
Illness. Some illnesses, including diabetes, chronic liv-er
disease, and cirrhosis, pose a special challenge to Na-tive
populations (NCHS, 2005). The fight against illness is
made more difficult by the fact that many Indian commu-nities
have inadequate numbers of physical and mental
health care providers (Cross, 2005).
Child Maltreatment. Indian children consistently have
the highest rates of maltreatment victimization in the U.S.
In 2002 Indian children were abused and neglected at a
rate of 21.7 per 1,000 Native children; the rate for White
children was 10.7 per 1,000 (USDHHS, 2005). Neglect
is the most common form of maltreatment among Native
Americans, while sexual and physical abuse appear to be
less common than among other groups (ICCTC, 2005).
AMERICAN INDIAN STRENGTHS
Although the challenges they face are real, Native Amer-icans
also possess many strengths.
Foremost among these is their resiliency. Indeed, after
centuries of racism, discrimination, boarding school place-ments,
forced relocation, attempted genocide, and tran-sracial
adoption, Native Americans’ very existence is a
remarkable achievement (Goodluck, 2002). But Indians
have done more than survive. Evidence for this can be
found in statistics about home ownership (nearly 55% of
all Native people own their own home) and education
(75% of Indians age 25 and over have at least a high
school diploma, 14% have at least a bachelor’s degree),
and in the fact that today American Indians are growing
and continuing as unique cultures and tribes.
To better understand American Indians’ successes,
Goodluck (2002) conducted a study in which she identi-fied
42 Native strengths. These strengths included the sov-ereignty
of tribes, humor, traditions, and many more (see
figure). This list is important because it can help non-Na-tive
child welfare practitioners understand what is impor-tant
to Indian individuals, families, and tribes.
Goodluck also developed a model of Native American
well-being. At the heart of this model are three domains:
extended family, spirituality, and social connections. Good-luck
believes activities in these domains reinforce one an-other
to create a cycle of Native American well-being.
Workers who want to improve their ability to recognize
Indian strengths and empower Native families should con-sider
reading Goodluck’s report, which contains sugges-tions
for identifying behaviors associated with different Na-tive
strengths. It is available at .
continued from page 4 THEMES OF NATIVE AMERICAN STRENGTHS
Source: Goodluck, 2002
This list is important because it can help non-Native child welfare
workers understand what is important to Indian families.
6
IMPLEMENTING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1978
It has been almost 30 years since Congress en-acted
the Indian Child Welfare Act. Though
we’ve made some strides during this time, child
welfare agencies occasionally struggle with the
why and the how of this important law.
As the story of Zak’s family illustrates (see facing page),
failing to understand and implement the requirements of
ICWA can cause delays and unnecessarily adversarial re-lationships
between the various parties in child welfare
cases that involve Native families. It can also cost child
welfare agencies in terms of time, money, and frustra-tion.
Worst of all, it can threaten the well-being of Indian
children, their families, and their tribes.
This article will review the reasons ICWA was created
and describe how to comply with it to safeguard the inter-ests
of Indian children and their tribes.
THE LAW
Congress passed ICWA in 1978, spurred on by evidence
that 25% to 35% of all Indian children at that time were
being removed from their families and placed in non-
Native foster and adoptive homes. The law can be seen
as an effort to end state and county child welfare policies
and practices that Congress believed were devastating
American Indian tribes.
ICWA does several important things to protect Indian
children and Indian tribes. First, it establishes a federal
standard that defines what is in the best interests of Indian
children. This standard is different from the standard for
other children, in part because Indian children enjoy a
different status in the courts because they are also part of
tribes, which are distinct sovereign entities. This
standard acknowledges that it is of vital im-portance
to the well-being of Indian children
to protect their rights as Indians, including their
right to be raised in a home that immerses
them in their cultural heritage (Goldsmith, 2002).
ICWA also protects the decisionmaking role of the child’s
tribe by requiring state courts and child welfare agencies
to notify tribes, invite them to intervene, and comply with
tribal preferences during: (1) foster care placements, (2)
TPR proceedings, (3) preadoptive and adoptive place-ments,
and (4) juvenile court custody or guardianship of
the juvenile. Even if a tribe initially declines to intervene, it
can change its mind at any time.
KEY POINTS
Particularly important elements of ICWA that all child wel-fare
workers and agencies should know include:
Identification of ICWA Children. ICWA applies
only to Indian children who are either (1) a member of a
federally-recognized tribe or (2) eligible for membership
in a federally-recognized tribe AND is the biological child
of a member of that tribe.
As the NC Supreme Court recently confirmed, only
children from federally-recognized tribes are subject to
ICWA (see 169 N.C. App. 701, 612 S.E. 2d 639,2005).
For a list of federally-recognized tribes dated spring/sum-mer
2005 go to .
To fully comply with ICWA child welfare workers should
inquire whether children/parents are American Indian with
every family and at every stage of each family’s case.
ICWA protects
the rights of
Indian children
and their tribes.
10 TIPS FOR COLLABORATING WITH TRIBES UNDER ICWA AND ASFA
1. Approach tribes with respect as unique, sovereign entities. Treat tribes as partners.
2. Know the law and state/tribal agreements.
3. Inquire whether children/parents are American Indian in all cases at every stage of the case.
4. Provide tribes with timely notice of ICWA cases. Be sure to notify the right contact at the tribe, usually the
social service provider.
5. Give tribal court orders and acts full faith and credit. Tribal courts have full authority to conduct Indian child
custody proceedings (ICWA, P.L. 95-608, Section 1911 (d)).
6. Work collaboratively with tribal social workers in implementing ICWA requirements; include tribal social
workers in all aspects of case plan development, including permanency planning.
7. Remember that the ICWA active efforts requirement is a higher standard of service than the reasonable
efforts requirement under ASFA.
8. Contact extended family members. Remember that American Indian extended families are much larger
than mainstream families and include relatives beyond grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.
9. Follow ICWA or Tribal placement preferences.
10. Do not fast-track potential Indian child welfare cases without immediately involving the tribes and/or extend-ed
family members.
Source: Amanda Cross, Institute for Child and Family Policy, Univ. of Southern Maine, in consultation with NICWA (Muskie, 2003).
7
Even if ICWA does not apply to an Indian child,
child welfare workers should still engage these fam-ilies
as they would any family. This means applying
the family-centered principles of partnership and
making the assumptions that form the basis of our
work. Among these is the belief that the safety of chil-dren
and others is always the first concern, that chil-dren
have a right to their families, and that families
themselves are our primary resource for protecting
children.
Notification of Tribes. If it suspects a child is
Native American, a child welfare agency must im-mediately
contact the child’s tribe to determine wheth-er
the child is an Indian child as defined by ICWA.
Only the tribe has the power to determine whether
the child is, or is eligible to be, a member.
Once tribal affiliation is determined, the child wel-fare
agency must provide written notice of any im-pending
placement proceedings to the child’s par-ents,
Indian custodian, and tribe. ICWA spells out the
information that must be contained in that notice,
which must be sent to the tribe via registered mail,
return receipt requested. It is best to phone the tribal
contact person and let that person know that you are
sending the required registered letter. It is also advis-able
to make a follow-up phone call a few days after
the letter is mailed out.
Active Efforts. Under ICWA, during foster care
or termination of parental rights proceedings child
welfare agencies must prove that they have used “ac-tive
efforts” (a higher standard than “reasonable ef-forts”)
to provide remedial services and rehabilita-tive
programs to prevent the breakup of the Native
American family, and that these efforts have failed.
Active efforts must be directly connected to the parent-ing
problems that are requiring your agency to seek
or maintain custody of the child (NCJFCJ, 2002).
Higher Standards of Proof. When ICWA ap-plies,
in order for the child to be placed in or remain
in foster care, DSS must use a “qualified expert wit-ness”
to present clear and convincing evidence in
court to demonstrate that continued custody with the
parent is “likely to result in serious emotional or phys-ical
damage to the child.” If a TPR petition is filed, the
standard of proof rises to beyond a reasonable doubt,
which is higher than North Carolina’s “clear and con-vincing”
standard for non-ICWA cases.
Placement Preferences. If placement of the
child is necessary, ICWA also establishes specific place-ment
preferences. Under ICWA, Indian
continued from page 6
When we first found out that our nephew, Zak, (my broth-er’s
2-year-old son) was in foster care, we weren’t sure
what to do. He was in another state and his parents had
been accused of physically abusing him. Even though
he is an enrolled member of our tribe, he wasn’t in an
Indian foster home like the ICWA requires. But at the
time, that was the least of our worries. We just wanted
to find out what we could do to help my brother, sister-in-law, and nephew.
Things didn’t look too good. Even though the abuse charges were
alleged, they hadn’t been proven. But besides the abuse charges, my
brother and his wife were pretty heavily involved in drugs and didn’t seem to
be doing anything to try to get their son back. My husband and I didn’t think
Zak would ever be returned to them because they really weren’t working
on their treatment plan.
We were licensed foster parents on the reservation where we live. We
figured we’d have a good chance to get our nephew placed with us when
the permanent plan was decided. My brother and sister-in-law were OK
about us having Zak placed with us. But the child welfare agency in their
state thought we wouldn’t protect him from his parents, so they left him in
the non-Indian foster home.
At first the child welfare agency didn’t notify our tribe about our family
situation. My brother didn’t tell the worker that he was a tribal member, and
she didn’t think Zak looked “Indian.” If the agency worker had asked Zak’s
parents more about their Indian heritage, she would have found out that
Zak was enrolled with our tribe. By the time the agency worker found out
about Zak’s Indian heritage and notified our tribe, Zak had already been in
foster care for three months. The tribe intervened and told the child welfare
agency that they wanted to transfer Zak’s case to tribal court in our state.
But the state court found “good cause” not to transfer and noted that Zak
had bonded with the foster family.
So Zak stayed in the non-Indian foster home where he’d been placed.
We were able to visit him only about once every six to eight weeks because
it was hard for us to travel out of state to see him. But we didn’t want him
to forget us so we kept visiting as often as we could. In the meanwhile, our
tribe kept trying to get jurisdiction.
After a year, Zak’s mom and dad had not finished their treatment plan
and had done nothing to reunify with Zak. The agency worker decided that
the permanent plan for Zak would be adoption. Even though she wanted
the foster family to adopt him, we also wanted to adopt Zak since he’s our
nephew. Our tribal lawyer was able to show in court that the purpose of
ICWA is to keep Indian families together. He proved that the social service
agency didn’t follow the ICWA from the beginning. He also showed that we
had kept close connections with Zak with our visits, and we were bonded
to him, too. It took a long time, but finally the court ruled in favor of the ICWA
and transferred jurisdiction to our tribal court, and we adopted Zak.
We know it was hard for his foster family to give him up, so we try to
make sure he has visits with them sometimes. But now Zak is growing up
with his cousins, grandparents, aunts, and uncles who live near us on the
reservation. He is learning the traditions and ceremonies of our tribe.
If it hadn’t been for the Indian Child Welfare Act, our family probably
would have been separated forever.
Reprinted from A Family’s Guide to the Child Welfare System (2005 Edition)
THE VOICES OF ZAK’S AUNT AND UNCLE
cont. p. 8
Photo Illustration
Children’s Services Practice Notes
Family & Children’s Resource Program
Jordan Institute for Families
UNC–School of Social Work
Campus Box 3550
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550
State Courier # 17-61-04
IN THIS ISSUE: WORKING WITH AMERICAN INDIAN FAMILIES
IMPLEMENTING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1978 from p. 7
children must be placed in the least restrictive setting possible, and the
placement must be within reasonable proximity to the child’s home.
Additionally, foster care placements are given the following order
of preference: (1) with extended family (third-degree blood ties—first
or second cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, or stepparents); (2)
with Indian foster parents approved by the tribe or with an Indian fos-ter
home licensed by the state; or (3) in residential care approved by
the tribe. The following is the preferred order for adoptive placements
of Indian children under ICWA: (1) extended family, (2) non-related
members of the same tribe, (3) other Indian families. Tribes may alter
the order of preference for its children, and the child welfare agency
must follow this new order. Also, consideration may be given to a
parent’s or a child’s wishes with regard to placement. (It should be
noted that these Indian/tribal preferences are possible because anoth-er
federal law, the Multiethnic Placement Act, has no effect on ICWA;
thus an Indian child may be moved from a non-Indian foster home to
comply with these preferences without a MEPA violation.)
Social workers must make every attempt to identify placements that
fit with this prescribed order, and they must carefully document any
reasons for failure to follow it (Goldsmith, 2002). These preferences
apply in ICWA cases even if the tribe elects not to intervene.
If a county or state child welfare agency places an Indian child in
foster care and the placement disrupts, compliance with ICWA must
continue: the agency must send notification via registered mail to the
tribe, which has another opportunity to intervene or indicate prefer-ences.
FURTHER LEARNING
There is more to know about ICWA than we have space to relate. For
additional ICWA learning resources, including online courses, see vol.
7, no. 2 of Training Matters .
Photo Illustration
KEY POINTS FROM THIS ISSUE
Success with Indian families will de-pend
in large part on your cultural
competence. This means you must
learn about the history, customs,
and world view of the families you
serve. It is especially important to
understand:
• That to comply with ICWA and
to effectively serve Indian families, you must ask
every child and family you work with whether
they are American Indian
• The broad definition of “family” in many Indian
communities, and the implications this has for
practice
• Communication styles and help-seeking and child-rearing
traditions of Native peoples
• Native people’s history of oppression and the
impact this has on their well-being and attitude
toward mainstream society
• Not only ICWA’s requirements but its intent, which
is to protect the interests of Indian children and
their tribes
• The challenges Indian families face today,
including poverty, alcohol abuse, domestic
violence, and untimely death
• The many strengths that Indians are drawing on
to solve problems and to grow and continue as
unique cultures and tribes